If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote: > As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated > the hardware and software changes over the years. But > most of them really weren't necessary- my first-flight > (1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles because I > a) kept the right fluid in it, and b) didn't let anyone > rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause > of 99% of the the alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family). Why do other transmissions seem to work more reliably than that Chrysler even when the fluid in them isn't changed often -- or at all? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Steve B. wrote:
> > Personally I agree with you that Chryslers transmissions still aren't > where they could be. I see this as more of a sign of the times > though. Manufacturers are forced to make things lighter and lighter > to meet EPA and public demand for better mileage. Honda and Toyota > have had recent transmission problems. The junk yard is full of Ford > Tauri with the "biodegradable transmission". GM's 4 speed > transmissions give out somewhere in the 150k range and have done so > since the mid 80's. On the other hand my '59 Imperial just got a > rebuilt cast iron torqueflite after 46 years and only got it now > because the rubber seals inside had finally deteriorated to the point > of no hope. Wow, they sure aren't doing a good job of making them lighter. I think our old '94 van weighs in at around 3500 pounds. We ARE buying the new one- pick it up tomorrow- and it weighs 3900 pounds! Heaviest car I ever will have owned. And this is still the short wheelbase version- we are not moving up to long wheelbase. Handling didn't seem bad- I always liked the way the Mopar minivans handled- but was a bit disappointed to see the wieght increase. I assume much of that is that it now has four doors instead of the three on our old van. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Stauffer" > wrote in message ... > Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy" > that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the > description seems to indicate a laminate, plastic on steel. I am > assuming it is a single layer of each. He said it provides both > corrosion resistance and sound deadening. > > I have never heard of such a material, though I know that they have > been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels > for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now? Screen wire reinforced polyester? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Hinz wrote:
> > Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be, > what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your ass". A breakdown of the > failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever > so welcome. Yeah, I did pull it out of my ass, but a number on the high side of 80% is just about right. No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got swapped because of that. And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame, and most of them never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup- unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission problems, mostly in minivans. > > Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination, No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be dealer mechanics (at an exceptional dealership in terms of technical expertise) who have explained the whole sequence of events, what was really wrong, and what "common practice" was. I've also participated in re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand. or why > are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please? Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of ****." And in the second place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the engineers to get it in production before it was ready. It ****ES me off to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring continue to verbally smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years after the problems have been resolved to the point that the CURRENT product has an industry-leading (or near it) reliability rate. And it ****ES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs) are always better. Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the 41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
> >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership > >> history and potential future considerations in order to justify my > >> statements. > > > > You're right; you needn't. You do, however, need to refrain from > > asserting grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked > > engineering facts. Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself > > look like an ass. > > Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then? Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:18:31 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote: > >> >> Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be, >> what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your ass". A breakdown of the >> failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever >> so welcome. > > Yeah, I did pull it out of my ass, but a number on the high side of 80% > is just about right. Great, I'd love to see those stats if I could then? > No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose > the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either > one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got > swapped because of that. So in addition to poor design for the mechanical failures, there are documentation and/or training problems? It just gets better & better. > And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became > the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the > biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame, Well, my '98 had the two I mentioned. Simultaneously. > and most of them > never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades > through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read > about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup- Well, sure, all those have died already. > unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission > problems, mostly in minivans. ....which to me, indicates a widespread problem (shrug) >> Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination, > No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer > and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be > dealer mechanics (at an exceptional dealership in terms of technical > expertise) who have explained the whole sequence of events, what was > really wrong, and what "common practice" was. I've also participated in > re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and > I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand. Well, I don't think a sensor problem caused my fluid loss at the connectors to the cooler, or caused the chunks of aluminum that the differential pin was happily chewing from the case, but I could be wrong. > or why >> are you defending the heap of **** in question so vehemently, please? > Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of ****." I call 'em like I see 'em, and from here, it sounds like it is. >And in the second > place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative > systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production > fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like > the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the > engineers to get it in production before it was ready. I'm not specifically blaming the engineers. I've also been the guy being pushed to release something not ready. Had a LONG talk with the boss once after asking "How bad do you want it? Because right now, it's pretty bad..." when being pushed to release something before it was done. He didn't like that. I still didn't sign off on it. > It ****ES me off > to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring > continue to verbally smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years > after the problems have been resolved Odd then that I asked several times if the problem had been resolved yet, and you kept snipping that part. Now, you're ****ed off that I didn't know if it was resolved, even though I asked several times and you kept not answering it? Interesting rhetorical technique. Not particularly effective, mind you, but interesting to watch. > to the point that the CURRENT > product has an industry-leading (or near it) reliability rate. Thanks for finally answering my question. > And it > ****ES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the > ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs) > are always better. I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort. (shrug?) maybe you're transferring your frustration with someone else onto me or something? > Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for > a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed > Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any > complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the > 41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown. You just contradicted yourself, by the way. Whatever. I really don't care. Fixed or not, after the way Chrysler basically said "yeah, we know it's ****, but tough luck on you" rather than doing the right thing, excluded them from future consideration. I know two guys who are Chrysler mechanics, and the transmission (and serpantine belt tensioner cluster****) on these vehicles is pretty much a running joke from what they tell me. Poor engineering (I didn't say bad engineers) shouldn't be rewarded by repeat business. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:44:14 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote: > >> Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then? > > Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the > Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing. Well, Steve posted the 3 names, so if you want to argue that something with 3 different names hasn't had two name changes, well, go ahead but you're on your own. So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws, or what's the game there? If the training and/or documentation problems caused trannies to be replaced when it was just a sensor problem, well, that may not be a fatal failure in your mind, but the effect to the guy paying for a new gearbox is the same. To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it, but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:44:14 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote: > > > >> Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then? > > > > Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the > > Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing. > > Well, Steve posted the 3 names, No, Steve posted the same thing I posted: "Ultradrive" was never an official name of the transmission, it was just a bit of hype used in car brochures. The transmission was known as A604 until all automakers changed their transmissions' designations in the mid '90s to conform to SAE nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek of yours is a complete red herring. > So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other. > To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it, > but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable. Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:04:00 -0400, Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Dave Hinz wrote: > >> Well, Steve posted the 3 names, > > No, Steve posted the same thing I posted: "Ultradrive" was never an > official name of the transmission, it was just a bit of hype used in car > brochures. The transmission was known as A604 until all automakers changed > their transmissions' designations in the mid '90s to conform to SAE > nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek > of yours is a complete red herring. First of all, you're using quotation marks. I challenge you to post a google link showing I wrote specifically what you're claiming I wrote. I mentioned two name changes, but it's hardly the central point of my posts. That you have fixated on that, rather than the meat of the problem, is rather telling. For instance: >> So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws > > Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other. Interesting that you snipped the context showing that this was a question of what you're saying, rather than me telling you what you're saying. I'll bite: how many fatal flaws do you feel that that transmission has suffered from in it's ignoble history? >> To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it, >> but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable. > Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing. Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and refuse to take responsibility. Full stop. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote: > wrote: > > One rule to remember about Chrysler and American cars: > > They tend to be deficient in the areas touted most by > > the marketing department. > <eyeroll>. This level of cluelessness pretty much goes with > the rest of the post, though, so I shouldn't be surprised. A check will reveal I'm correct. Or do you really believe the original Olds Quad 4 was smooth-running compared to German and Japanese 4s? > > Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler > > 4-speed automatic, which still remains one of the least > > reliable transmissions made, despite all the extensive changes, > Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably better > than Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these days, > thanks to years of development. The space shuttle has had even more years of development, but neither has become highly reliable yet. I know of Honda's recent transmission problems but haven't heard of Toyota's, so do you have any proof to back up your claim? A TSB itself is not proof; show something like longer-term numbers from Gelco Leasing, Consumers Union, or J.D. Powers. > including 3-4 upgrades to the fluid. > > ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3. > And its backward-compatible. If there had been just 1 fluid upgrade, then Chrysler would still be at ATF+2 (7176d), not at ATF+3 (7176e), +4, or +5. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do VW steel wheels or alloy wheels weigh more? | Fred Fartalot | VW water cooled | 27 | June 8th 18 03:18 PM |
alloy rims? | William R. Watt | Technology | 25 | April 2nd 05 08:16 PM |
Replacing Alloy Wheels on 97 accord - what to look for? | [email protected] | Honda | 3 | February 16th 05 02:40 PM |
Looking for a place to buy a 17in 3big bore 3 Hole Alloy wheel | Duffy | Alfa Romeo | 4 | September 7th 04 10:35 PM |